[North-NV-Greens] Patriot Act - Need Letters to the Editor - Please!

[Bob Tregilus]

Hi folks -

Right now is the perfect time to write letters to the editor of both the 
Reno Gazette Journal (RGJ) and the Reno News and Review. Please write 
one today! We need to keep the dialogue going after the excellent 
opinion piece on Monday from a staunch Northern Nevada conservative.

With the Patriot Act hearings on capital hill and the upcoming April 
20th event at the Nevada Museum of Art this will be our best opportunity 
to put pressure on local officials to pass resolutions.

But we need your help! Please write a letter to the editor now!

The articles attached below should give you plenty of material to work from.

For the RGJ the letter must be less than 200 words. Click this URL for more:
http://www.rgj.com/helpdesk/news/letter_to_editor.php

For the Reno News and Review email it here:
renoletters at newsreview.com
RN&R does not state length but I'd keep it around 150 - 200 words.

And once you've done that email your letter to Gibbons, Ensign, and Reid:

Click here for Gibbons:
http://wwwc.house.gov/gibbons/contact_feedback.asp

Click here for Ensign:
http://ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm

Click here for Reid:
http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

Thanks!

Be well,
Bob Tregilus
775/826-4514
Acting Chair-
Nevada Campaign to Defeat the Patriot Act
http://www.ncdpa.org

---

URL: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17946&c=206

Patriot Act Oversight Hearing Highlights Flaws, Increasing Use Of 
Special Search, Surveillance Powers
April 5, 2005

WASHINGTON - Today’s oversight hearing on the USA Patriot Act, the 2001 
law that removed checks on the government’s ability to collect 
information on innocent Americans, provided ample evidence that the 
Patriot Act was passed with undue haste and has been flawed in its 
implementation, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media at dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - Today’s oversight hearing on the USA Patriot Act, the 2001 
law that removed checks on the government’s ability to collect 
information on innocent Americans, provided ample evidence that the 
Patriot Act was passed with undue haste and has been flawed in its 
implementation, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

That, coupled with evidence of increasing use and abuse of the law, 
strongly recommends passage of reform legislation like the bipartisan 
Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005, which was unveiled 
today.

"With the Patriot Act, everything points to a grave need for reform," 
said Gregory T. Nojeim, Associate Director of the ACLU Washington 
Legislative Office. "Not only is the Justice Department using it more 
and more, but Attorney General Gonzales admitted the need to fix the 
law, and we have the clearest evidence of Patriot Act abuse to date in 
the Mayfield case."

Today’s panel before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the first in an 
expected series of Congressional oversight hearings on the Patriot Act, 
parts of which are set to expire by the end of the year unless Congress 
votes to renew them. In the three years since the law’s passage, a 
growing and bipartisan group of conservative and progressive critics 
have called on Congress to reexamine and reform certain troubling parts 
of the law.

Of particular note, today’s Senate hearing highlighted how the use of 
the Patriot Act’s secret search and surveillance authority has grown in 
recent years. Attorney General Gonzales admitted, for instance, that the 
government has used Section 215, the so-called "library records" 
provision, 35 times since September 2003. According to former Attorney 
General John Ashcroft, it had not been used before then.

That said, the ACLU cautiously welcomed certain ostensible concessions 
from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who agreed to support 
modifications to Section 215 clarifying that the recipient of a 215 
order can consult an attorney and that the records seized must pertain 
to national security.

The ACLU expressed deep concern, however, with the clearest indications 
yet of Patriot Act abuse, evidenced in the Brandon Mayfield case. Last 
year, the FBI falsely implicated Brandon Mayfield, an attorney from 
Oregon, as a suspect in the Madrid bombing case. Today, the attorney 
general admitted that the FBI used Patriot Act amendments to an 
intelligence law, which the made it easier to deploy in criminal cases, 
to secretly search his home.

"The Mayfield case is a poster child for Patriot Act abuse," the ACLU’s 
Nojeim said. "It showcases how the unchecked powers in the law can 
dramatically compound federal investigative errors and result in serious 
civil liberties deprivations."

The ACLU’s letter on how the Patriot Act has been abused and misused is 
available at:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17911&c=206

---


American Civil Liberties Union Banner

URL: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17935&c=206

Bipartisan Legislation Would Fix Worst Parts of Patriot Act While 
Maintaining Key Law Enforcement Powers
April 5, 2005

WASHINGTON - New bipartisan legislation that will be introduced tomorrow 
would bring some of the most extreme provisions of the Patriot Act back 
in line with the Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union said. 
The bill would restore checks and balances on federal domestic spying 
powers and narrow several controversial Patriot Act provisions.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media at dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - New bipartisan legislation that will be introduced tomorrow 
would bring some of the most extreme provisions of the Patriot Act back 
in line with the Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union said. 
The bill would restore checks and balances on federal domestic spying 
powers and narrow several controversial Patriot Act provisions.

"This critical legislation is introduced as bipartisan opposition to 
some of the worst Patriot Act provisions is growing both inside and 
outside of Congress," said Gregory T. Nojeim, Associate Director of the 
ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "As the Senate and House Judiciary 
committees hold hearings to examine what liberties we’ve lost since 
9/11, lawmakers should remember that this remedy is at hand."

The Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act was announced at a news 
conference held today by Senators Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, 
and Richard Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois.

The ACLU said that most of the voluminous Patriot Act is actually 
unobjectionable from a civil liberties point of view and added that the 
law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools 
they need to protect against terrorist attacks. A few provisions, 
though, unnecessarily trample civil liberties, and must be revised to 
bring them in line with the Constitution. To that end, the Safe Act would:

* Scale back the government’s authority to seize personal information-- 
credit reports, communications records and financial information -- 
through National Security Letters without judicial review. A federal 
court recently found the NSL statute applicable to Internet Service 
Providers unconstitutional because of its "unparalleled level of secrecy 
and coercion." The Safe Act gives the recipient the right to ask a court 
to limit the request and protect privileged information. It also places 
limits on gag order restrictions.

* Narrow the "sneak and peek" provision in the Patriot Act, which allows 
federal agents to get court authorization to search Americans’ homes 
without notifying them for weeks or even months.

* Refine section 215, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain a rubberstamp 
court order giving it access to Americans’ medical, business, library 
and even genetic records without probable cause. The bill would preclude 
investigative fishing expeditions by requiring some individualized 
suspicion.

Last week, Montana became the fifth state to pass a resolution critical 
of the Patriot Act as its state legislature passed one of the most 
strongly worded resolutions to date. Resolutions have passed in nearly 
400 communities representing nearly 60 million people.

"Legislators in communities all across America have fixes to the Patriot 
Act in mind, and we applaud these U.S. senators for the same focus," 
Nojeim said. "Both the left and right want to make sure the Patriot Act 
keeps us safe and free, and this legislation is a critical first step."

For more information on the Patriot Act, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/patriot

----


American Civil Liberties Union Banner

URL: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17920&c=206

Patriot Act Abuses and Misuses Abound, ACLU Says; Disclosure Comes 
Before Congress Begins Review of Controversial Law
April 4, 2005

WASHINGTON - A day before Congress begins its oversight of the 
controversial Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union today 
responded to an inquiry by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about abuses 
of the Patriot Act, saying that the Patriot Act has been abused and 
misused repeatedly by the government since its enactment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media at dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - A day before Congress begins its oversight of the 
controversial Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union today 
responded to an inquiry by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about abuses 
of the Patriot Act, saying that the Patriot Act has been abused and 
misused repeatedly by the government since its enactment.

"Despite the secrecy that permeates the Patriot Act, it’s clear that it 
has been abused and misused," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive 
Director. "The government has committed these transgressions without 
apology or regret and has simultaneously sought to expand the powers 
granted under the Patriot Act. As Congress reviews the Patriot Act, we 
hope that it will fully examine these abuses and act to ensure that our 
civil liberties and privacy are not unnecessarily curtailed under the 
guise of national security."

"Although the Department of Justice has not been forthcoming, some 
abuses have seen the light of day," Romero added. "It is quite likely 
that there are many more abuses being kept hidden from the American 
public and Congress. Such secrecy is abhorrent to our rule of law."

Both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are expected to hold 
oversight hearings on the Patriot Act this week. Lawmakers will only 
hear from administration officials at these inaugural hearings, and the 
ACLU has asked that members question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 
and FBI Director Robert Mueller about the abuses and misuses of the 
Patriot Act.

According to reports, the Patriot Act has been used to:

* Secretly search the home of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney whom 
the government wrongly suspected, accused and detained as a perpetrator 
of the recent train bombing in Madrid.
* Charge, detain, and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho, Sami 
al-Hussayen, for providing "material support" to terrorists because he 
posted to an Internet website links to objectionable materials, even 
though such links were available on the websites of a major news outlet 
and of the government’s own expert witness in the case.
* Serve a National Security Letter (NSL) on an Internet Service Provider 
(ISP) so coercive under the provisions of the NSL statue that a federal 
court struck down the entire statute - as vastly expanded by the Patriot 
Act - used to obtain information about e-mail activity and web surfing 
for intelligence investigations.
* Gag that ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public, and gag the 
ACLU itself, which represents the ISP, from disclosing this abuse to the 
public when ACLU became aware of it, and from disclosing important 
circumstances relating to this abuse and other possible abuses of the 
gag, even to this very day.
* Investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism offenses, even 
though it cited terrorism prevention as the reason Congress should enact 
the law, and cites terrorism prevention as the reason why it cannot be 
changed.

The ACLU noted that some of these powers were available to law 
enforcement before 9/11, but that they were vastly strengthened or 
broadened by the Patriot Act. The expansions made by the Patriot Act 
facilitated each abuse.

As Congress reviews the Patriot Act, the ACLU said that the lack of 
disclosure from the Department of Justice on the use of the Patriot Act 
remains alarming. The stonewalling of the Department has drawn 
Congressional rebuke as well. Last week, Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and 
Feinstein, the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security released a 
bipartisan report on national efforts to protect against terrorism, 
noting the lack of disclosure from the Justice Department.

The report stated, "Requests to the Department of Justice to provide a 
comprehensive report assessing the effect and efficacy of the sixteen 
provision of the Patriot Act subject to "sunset" remain unfulfilled. 
Such a report is a critical element in the Subcommittee’s, and indeed 
the entire Committee’s, responsibility to provide meaningful oversight 
before determining whether to change the law with respect to these 
provisions."

The ACLU pointed to growing bi-partisan concerns over the Patriot Act. 
Last month, the ACLU joined forces with several conservative 
organizations under the umbrella group, Patriots to Restore Checks and 
Balances, to urge Congress and the administration to fix the most 
extreme provisions of the Patriot Act. Members include former 
Congressman Bob Barr, Americans for Tax Reform, the American 
Conservative Union and others.

Nationwide, pro-civil liberties resolutions have passed in 375 
communities in 43 states, including the state legislatures of Alaska, 
Hawaii, Vermont , Maine and Montana. Most of the resolutions call upon 
Congress to bring the Patriot Act back in line with the Constitution. 
These communities represent approximately 56.2 million people.

"Our findings show that our concerns about the Patriot Act are not 
raising ‘phantoms of lost liberty’ - they are genuine fears," said 
Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director of the ACLU Washington Legislative 
Office. "The sales pitch of the Bush administration is that the Patriot 
Act is needed to protect the country from terrorists. But the truth is 
that the act has been abused, and been used often for investigations of 
crimes that are not terrorism. The Patriot Act must be modified to give 
law enforcement the tools it needs and to preserve our commitment to 
privacy and freedom."

The ACLU’s letter to Senator Feinstein is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17911&c=206

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web 
site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs
---

New York Times
April 6, 2005
Antiterrorism Law Defended as Hearings Start
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, April 5 - The Justice Department stood firm on Tuesday in 
opposing wide-ranging efforts to limit the government's ability to 
demand library records and conduct secret searches in intelligence 
investigations, but it did agree to minor modifications in the sweeping 
antiterrorism law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The department has no interest in rummaging through the library records 
or the medical records of Americans," Attorney General Alberto R. 
Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At the same time, however, Mr. Gonzales said "libraries should not 
become safe havens for people who are here in this country and do want 
to do harm to other Americans."

Mr. Gonzales's forceful defense of the expanded antiterrorism powers 
granted under the USA Patriot Act came at the start of what is expected 
to be months of hearings in both the Senate and the House. Sixteen 
provisions in the law are to expire by year's end, and a decision over 
whether to extend them, and whether the government's expanded powers 
have eroded civil liberties, is shaping up as one of the biggest 
legislative battles in the current Congress.

"Before we rush to renew any controversial powers created by the Patriot 
Act," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on 
the panel, "we need to understand how these powers have been used and 
whether they've been effective."

With the Justice Department lobbying for expanded powers and harsher 
sentences to fight terrorism, a group of Republican and Democratic 
senators countered by reintroducing a stalled proposal that would 
restrict the government's ability to demand records and conduct searches 
in terror investigations.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said at the hearing on 
Tuesday that he planned to introduce an amendment to the Patriot Act 
that would bar anyone on a federal terrorism watch list from buying a 
gun. Mr. Schumer's proposal comes weeks after a Congressional report 
found that dozens of terror suspects were allowed to buy guns last year 
because being on a watch list does not, on its own, prevent such a purchase.

Senators from both parties said on Tuesday that the lack of firm data 
from the Bush administration hindered their ability to assess the 
effects of using the antiterrorism law. In an effort to ease those 
concerns, the Justice Department released newly declassified data for 
the second straight day.

The latest batch dealt in part with the department's use of Section 215 
of the law, known by critics as the "library provision" because it 
allows the government to demand library records in intelligence 
investigations. The newly declassified data showed that in 35 instances 
since late 2003, the department had used the law to gain access to 
information on apartment leasing, driver's licenses, financial records 
and other data in intelligence investigations.

Mr. Gonzales emphasized, however, that the department had never used the 
provision to demand records from libraries or bookstores or to get 
information related to medical or gun records - all areas that have 
prompted privacy concerns and protests from civil rights advocates, 
conservative libertarians and other critics of the law.

Officials acknowledged that some libraries had turned over records 
voluntarily, while the Justice Department has secured access to other 
library material through traditional criminal subpoenas.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the 
Judiciary Committee, asked Mr. Gonzales whether the administration would 
consider exempting libraries from Section 215. But Mr. Gonzales and 
Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
who testified alongside Mr. Gonzales, rejected the idea and said such a 
move would harm the government's ability to track terrorism because 
suspects had been known to use library computers to communicate with one 
another and to research jihadist literature.

Noting that the Justice Department had not used the law to demand 
library records, Mr. Gonzales said: "It should not be held against us 
that we've exercised, in my judgment, restraint. It's comparable to a 
police officer who carries a gun for 15 years and never draws it. Does 
that mean that for the next five years he should not have that weapon 
because he had never used it?"

Mr. Specter, an ally of the Bush administration on many law enforcement 
issues, was not persuaded. "Attorney General Gonzales, I don't think 
your analogy is apt," he said, "but if you want to retain those records 
as your position, I understand."

In what Justice Department officials characterized as a "clarification" 
of existing policy, Mr. Gonzales said the administration supported 
amending the law to allow someone served with a demand for records to 
contact a lawyer, a concession sought by critics.

He also said the administration would support establishing in the law 
that the records must be considered "relevant" to a national security 
investigation, but he rejected overtures from some committee members to 
impose a higher standard of proof in establishing "probable cause" that 
the records were needed in an intelligence investigation.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | 
Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

---

29 Mar 2005

Dear Bob:

I understand, but have not yet checked on this, that the Department of 
Justice Office of Inspector General has recently issued a report dated 
Mar 11 (2005) on complaints received over abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. 
If that report exists you should be able to trace it through the DOJ 
Website by going to the Office of Inspector General page. Reports of 
this sort should be available for download in .pdf format.

As well, my book "No Greater Threat" contains details of many instances 
where prosecutions have been conducted under the PATRIOT Act that 
qualify as abuses. Book is available at barnes&noble.com and amazon.com. 
The update of the book, which should be available this Summer, contains 
even more.

For one example, you can search the Internet for a story involving the 
owner and workers at a restaurant in Illinois called the "Crazy Tomato." 
They were the subject of an FBI arrest and investigation that was so 
botched, the FBI had to issue a rare public apology. Try searching for 
the restaurant name and "FBI" and you should get something.

Then there was the situation of an arrest in New York of a professor who 
originally was charged with bioterrorism under a bioterror law amended 
by the PATRIOT Act, because he had harmless strains of a bacteria in a 
makeshift lab in his home, as part of an creative arts project. The 
police learned of this when he called them to the house after his wife's 
death there. They investigated and found nothing suspicious about the 
death, but saw the petri dishes and swung into action. They cordoned off 
the block, called in the feds, and we were off and running. Dont have 
the professor's name because I dont have my notes in front of me at the 
moment. But searching the Internet for "professor" and "bacteria" and 
"New York" and "FBI" will probably do it. Very interesting and ongoing 
story.

Then (one of my favorites) there was the case of a woman on a cruise 
ship on the West Coast who was despondent about being forced to take the 
cruise by her parents because they wanted to get her away from what her 
parents felt with an unhealthy relatiionship with her boyfriend. To try 
to get off the boat and be reunited with her boyfriend, she left 
threatening notes claiming that she would damage the boat or crew unless 
it put into port, something like that. The notes were found, police were 
called, the boat put into port, SWAT teams arrived with dogs, the entire 
ship was searched, crew and passengers interviewed, and the woman was 
charged with a variety of federal crimes. I believe she was sentenced to 
a term in prison. Try searching for "cruise ship" and "terrorism" and 
you should find that story. (I believe she was sentenced to prison even 
though she was pregnant at the time).

Then there is a case of several Muslim activists in Virginia who were 
charged and convicted of material support for terrorism, because among 
other things the defendants were playing paint-ball in a woods in 
Virginia, which the FBI investigated and determined was a ruse for an 
actual training operation for potential terrorist attack. These guys 
were convicted or pled guilty and were sentenced to long terms in 
federal prison. The case became known as the "Virginia jihad paintball 
case" and was a cause of great concern and activism by the local Muslim 
community. You can try searching for "paint ball" and "terrorism" and 
"Virginia" and probably find that one.

The Muslim activist organization , Council on Arab-Islamic Relations 
(CAIR) may have a report on a variety of cases like this. You can also 
try the national ACLU website for similar reports.

And of course one of the most real and serious situations, and one very 
much ongoing and still in the news, is of attorney Lynne Stewart in New 
York. She is a well know activist attorney in the style of William 
Kunstler and Ron Kuby. She represented, and still does, the shiek who 
was charged and convicted of the terrorist plot in the original World 
Trade Center bombing. Supposedly, as part of her usual visits with him, 
she passed along some messages on behalf of the shiek and held a press 
conference to discuss some views of his. These, admittedly, were 
violations of strict terms of visiting policies concerning the shief 
which also applied to her, as imposed by the Bureau of Prisons. So she 
was criminally prosecuted. But, she was charged not just with violating 
those administrative rules, but also charged with MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR 
TERRORISM. She has been CONVICTED of those charges and stands to serve 
more than 20 years in jail, not to mention also being disbarred. Part of 
the evidence against her was confidential monitoring of attorney-client 
communications conducted by the FBI, under the PATRIOT Act. You can 
search the website for this www.lynnestewart.org, to get some background.

----

Hi Bob,

First, I would point out that two federal courts have struck down as
unconstitutional key USAPA provisions. Humanitarian Law Project vs.
Ashcroft struck down section 805(a)(2)(b), the "expert advice or
assistance" provision, ruling that it was so vague that it included
First Amendment protected activities. The second case, which the NYCLU
co-counsels, struck down section 505, the National Security Letters
provision, ruling that it violated First Amendment free speech rights
and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the
Fourth Amendment. SDNY Judge Marrero said in the ruling, "Democracy
abhors undue secrecy." Great quote.

Second, I strongly recommend that you use the case example of Sami Omar
al-Hussayen, an Idaho college graduate student who was indicted under
USAPA's material support provision and found not guilty by all 12 Idaho
jurors. He was accused of operating a website that included links to
other websites that included some statements that supported terrorism.
That's comparable to indicting the webmaster for the NY Times for
including links to taped messages of Osama Bin Laden. He was arrested
in a pre-dawn raid on his apartment in February 2003. He spent 17
months in jail, and was never convicted of any wrongdoing. The
government spent 2.5 years and millions of dollars to investigate and
prosecute him. It was a complete waste of time.

Third, I have a great example for you for that "Times of Kansas" example
you wanted. How about the Des Moines Register? It looked into the 35
terrorism arrests in Iowa claimed by the Justice Department. According
to the Register, the books were cooked Enron style. The paper spoke
with one of the federal district court judges who according to the DOJ
presided over at least six of the terrorism cases. According to Judge
Pratt, "If there have been any terrorism-related arrests in Iowa, I
haven't heard of them." That's a quote. Get a copy of the article for
some great examples of what DOJ considers "terrorism."

As for the examples given by Aram, some of them are not USAPA examples.
The CBS News report is about the DOJ Inspector General report released
in 2003. It is not about USAPA abuses, but rather relies on a USAPA
provision to investigate civil rights/liberties abuses. This is
important, since people make the common mistake that it's a report about
USAPA abuses. That's incorrect. Same goes for the other IG report
cited.

As for a compilation of general DOJ abuses, you may find some helpful
info on http://www.watchingjustice.org.

Best,

Udi


Udi Ofer
Project Director, Bill of Rights Defense Campaign
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212)344-3005 ext. 242

---

Bob-- I do not have as a comprehensive a list that you are asking, but

here is a few to get you started:



CBS News reports of PA abuses with no cause:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml



Brandon Mayfield case (and other abuses). Mayfield (lawyer in

Oregon who changed his religion and became Muslim and married a

Muslim female, I think from Egypt, not sure where she is was born)

was accused of working w/ terrorist in the Spain bombing and was

jailed w/o access to lawyer, knowing the charges against him etc., he

was released finally w/o any charges against him, he's suing the

Justice Department

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2004/062204patriotactabuses.htm



mis-use of PA to get a person who is alleged of pirating MGM movies,

some terrorist :-)), we all should feel safe now :-))

http://polemic.enduphere.com/?p=414



Summary of Inspector General report on allegation of dozens of PA

abuses at Justice Department, I'm not sure if the IG report ever was

made public

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003200.html



Canadian-Syrian who was arrested while changing planes in JFK

on his way from an overseas trip to go home to his country of

residence Canada. In Syria the guy was "done" nicely and finally

released, he is considering to sue US government, Canada has

protested to US

http://www.zerra.net/freemohamed/content.php?content.36



To date "no indictment" handed down for 1,000s (the actual number

is unknown) of arrested in US, the only likely person would be the

20th 9/11 hijacker whose case has not gotten to trial yet, the US

Supreme Court just had a ruling on his case regarding access

to others arrested overseas for him to prepare his case, the US

SC sided w/ the government. --Aram.

Fax: (212)344-3329

Chuck Michaels, Esq.
cwmichaels at igc.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005